A Fence Sitter Explains why Bill Clinton is Wrong (From the Safety of His Armchair)

On Super Tuesday, a well-timed flu bug saved me from having to choose between a green but undeniably inspirational Barack Obama and the battle-scarred but apparently "ready to govern" candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I live in NY, a Clinton stronghold, and so my vote that day (or lack of it) was less decisive than the votes that will be cast next week in Texas and Ohio. Bill Clinton has famously said, for example, that Hillary needs to win both to stay alive. As someone who admits to still sitting on the fence, I'm not sure that he is right.

Just for the fun of it consider the following:

Obama wins Texas but Hillary ekes out a narrow win in Ohio. That leaves them both looking to Pennsylvania where Hillary still enjoys a decent though shrinking lead. Given this very likely scenario, I can't imagine Clinton simply dropping out. Instead, I see the already pitched battle for superdelegates getting even hotter (if that's possible).

In that fight Obama has a powerful argument: he will have earned the most awarded delegates, won the most primaries, and be the indisputable possessor of "Big Mo." Plus, my gut tells me that Obama matches up better against McCain in the general election where Bush fatigue, the war, and the weak economy favor his charismatic formulation of "Change" over Hillary's somewhat leaden claims to "Experience."

But before we get there, Hillary has some important arguments of her own: First, if superdelegates exist merely to mirror the results of primary elections, why have them at all? Like it or not, superdelegates serve a separate purpose: to add the leavening influence of seasoned party veterans to the froth whipped up by a potential charismatic greenhorn. And it is to this audience that Hillary can make her strongest case: Does the party really want to nominate a candidate that lost almost every state necessary for victory in November? After all, it is Hillary, not Barack who won in New York, California, Ohio (if she holds on) Florida (whether seated or not) Michigan (same), New Hampshire, New Jersey, (and potentially Pennsylvania). Obama's win streak, though undeniably impressive, was largely in states likely to go Republican in the fall.

So I think Bill Clinton is wrong, at least about about Texas. If Hillary wins Ohio and Pennsylvania and can persuade enough superdelegates that it is she, not Barack, that really owns the heart and soul of the party....on the other hand, maybe I'm just looking for a rationalization to extend what has been the most enjoyable horse race this party has seen in a long time.

Go Baraillary!

Comments

[patrice37]

I'm sorry, but the reasoning here is piss-poor. So Hillary has won "almost every state necessary" for victory in the fall? How's that? So she won New York. And Obama won Illinois, by a much bigger margin. So she won California. And California is going to turn into a red state is Obama is the nominee? Same for New Jersey. She won Michigan; Obama WASN'T ON THE BALLOT. She potentially wins Ohio and Pennsylvania. And she potentially does not. So far, your argument is somewhere between meaningless and preposterous. The states truly necessary for victory in the fall are the purple states where we need huge Dem turnout and votes from independents. These include Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Colorado. How did Hillary do in those states? Very badly. But no matter. The superdelegates may save us from a candidate who generates enthusiasm.

[OSUMercutio]

You had me going for a little while... At least until you brought up Michigan and Florida. You know, Michigan, that state that didn't even have Barack Obama's name on the ballot.

[gcg737]

You're (unfortunately) correct in your analysis.

In all likelihood the changing script leaking out of the Clinton campaign (that Obama must win all 4 races to "prove" his acceptance by the Democratic electorate) is simply to provide the wriggle room required to stay in the race even with a couple losses.

As it's unlikely these two power-hungry individuals (Bill and Hill) will quit the field graciously, it will be incumbent upon party elders to help them out the door so Obama can focus on his national campaign against McCain and the Repugs in the Fall.

[PioneerKing]

You've fallen for Clintonian speak. If, if, if. Gee, let me see, is that If like "it all depends on what the definition of is, is?"

[timm0]

OK, so that's nice that you're still on the fence. But please, this argument about the HRC wins in Dem strongholds holds no water at all. In fact, it's not even a sieve... it's a hoop. The races are between DEMOCRATS... it's a PRIMARY! Do you really believe that mccain is going to beat Obama in New York, California, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania? You REALLY believe that?!?! If not, then let's just stop tossing out that commentary... it's utterly absurd.

However, I will add this... if HRC wins the nomination on superdelegates overruling the popular vote/delegate count, she will be perceived by moderate Rs and Independents as a party shill. I guarantee - regardless of her final numbers in the PA primary - that she will lose PA to mccain in the General election. Guaran-frickin-teed.

[wilhelmR]

I am already bored to death with this Primary Democratic Election. I have "fatigue." I fear what's coming when one of them run against McCain, which is going to be really dirty: McCain's backers will do onto "the other" what Bush did to McCain. Hillary did not expect that "the other" (as if this were a movie) should have been at the back of the line or the "the back of a bus"), which has racial connotations. Oh well, the "old timers" like in a Corporation of mediocre C-level Execs hating the new "outsider" who is better than they are and raise the issue of "risky" to the CEO as not to hire the better Exec from the outside. It is not a matter of "risk" but rather a fear of the mediocre using the "old timers" line to protect their position that, at the end, would risk the entire Corporation and its employees. I've seen it, I've been there: I have been "too risky" for incompetents who always use "our strong culture" to banned the outsiders, the different, the better ones. Just like Obama is to the Democratic Party and/or to Hillary.

[Manx]

You say the superdelegates serve a separate purpose, "to add the leavening influence of seasoned party veterans." This is exactly what Obama is fighting against - entrenched party regulars and political machines who make decisions in smoke-filled rooms. The word "super" itself implies that a delegate's vote is somehow more important than a vote by a regular citizen. I couldn't think of anything more undemocratic. Superdelegates should be eliminated altogether.

I do agree that the Clintons won't give up easily. They are willing to drag the Democratic party down with them in their desperation. I would never vote for a candidate who is so desperate to be president.

[demondeac]

The obvious problem with the argument (other than the inclusiuon of New York in the list as if her victory there was more meaningful than Obama's in Illinois) is that beating a fellow Democrat in reliably Democratic states is as meaningless as winning Democratic primaries in reliably red states.

How Hillary does in Dem primaries in swing states against Obama might, just might, say something about how one or the other would do against McCain in those swing states.

That said, this would not be the worst argument I have heard from the Clinton campaign of late. Just don't see it as persuasive among superdelegates who are wise enough in electoral math to see through it and much more fearful of losing the Obama voters (many of whom would sit out or jump to McCain were Hillary "chosen" by such means) than they are of losing the reliable Hillary Dems that would be disappointed, but not disaffected, were Obama to win.

[57andfemale]

A small aside: Obama beat Clinton by 32 points in Illinois. Clinton beat Obama by 17 points in New York (and that was before they found the votes in black precincts where he allegedly got 0 votes).

You're right -- beating a democrat in a safe democratic state is meaningless. However, the red state argument is not as clear cut: the resounding turnout for democrats in some of these purple leaning states, and the resounding vote for Obama can make some changes in the electoral map. If he picks up one or two of these states, like Iowa or Colorado, it bodes well for Obama. He will fight McCain for the independents. My bet is on Obama to pick up the majority of them. Hillary isn't even in that fight.

The Clintons have done such damage to the soul of the party with their scorched earth destruction, it will be hard to support her. Watching her throughout this process, I become less and less convinced that she would even be a decent president (at the beginning of the year, I would have been happy with any of our candidates). She is myopic, unable to inspire or communicate (except when she's scolding and mocking). She presents her 10-point plans, and is just so annoyed at our stupidity that we just don't follow. She belongs in a policy think tank, she is not right for the presidency.

Her negatives have actually gone up in recent polls -- they are over 52%. And she can't send surrogates to address the nation in a time of crisis, or to rally a working majority around her policies. All the 10-point plans in the world don't matter if you can't get the people behind you.

She has become Bush in a pantsuit -- effective at lying and with a thin veneer over the mean-spiritness. I'm her demographic, and I don't know if I can vote for her. And since I'm in a safe state, I may be able to save my soul and just not vote for president. I cannot believe I'm considering this -- I have voted in every election since 1972. That's how disillusioned and disappointed I am in the Clintons.

[nacilbuper]

your obvious opinion - typo

[nacilbuper]

-Like it or not, superdelegates serve a separate purpose: to add the leavening influence of seasoned party veterans to the froth whipped up by a potential charismatic greenhorn.-

so why have the 'democratic' primaries at all? if, in you obvious opinion, the average, unseasoned (unwashed and unworthy) party non-veteran, is too stupid, ill-informed or gullible to pick the right candidate of their choice.

am i missing something, or should the name of our party NOT be the DEMOCRATIC party?

[foreffectivegovernment]

I think you are right.

Even with crossover Republicans, Obama-bots, strong-arming of Black super-delegates, and every dirty trick in the book from the Obama camp, Hillary has won most of the Democratic states.

Maybe us Blue-Dog Democrats will come out in droves in Texas and push her campaign over the top. Here is evidence of what I am saying.

This is not a pro-Obama campaign. It is an Anti-Clinton campaign.

This is a continuation of the Republican smear against the Clintons since the first day of Bill Clinton's administration spearheaded by T. Boone Pickens and his crew. Check these links to find the truth.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/358

http://www.againsthillary.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Her_Now

[57andfemale]

Used to believe the vast right wing conspiracy line. Defended the Clintons for years and years. Now I'm wondering if they were right. When I hear Hillary say in Ohio this week "Obama doesn't want you to have healthcare. He only wants children to have healthcare" -- Karl Rove must be so proud. To say that the Obama campaign is anti-HIllary, when I've heard nothing but lies and distortions out of Hillary -- lying about his pro-choice record, using fear tactics (Obama has more foreign policy experience than Bill had, for God's sake).

She may very well win -- Americans respond to fear and negative campaigning. But she will not ever be able to bring the country together. It's not in her nature, it's not even something she desires. It's just about her. And I guess it always was -- I was just too blind to see it. I'm weary of applauding her for "surviving". She didn't use wise judgment when Bill dragged this country through his personal dramas -- she believed him. It makes her a commendable wife, but why does that make her presidential material? Her judgment is myopic, and I think dangerous in the long run. I worry about what she will do when she has a need to look "tough". If you think she's been fully vetted, how naive are you? No tax returns, no information on Bill's business dealings, donors to the foundation and the library. No release of papers from her years of "experience" as First Lady. How are these things not relevant to judging how she will govern and who she will reward?

How someone whom over half of the country hates is ever going to pass her precious 10-point plans, is beyond me. But in Clintonian fashion, that's someone else's fault: the mean press, the stupid electorate, all those people out to get her. I don't get it.

[BitJam]

Unfortunately for your armchair entertainment, the purpose of the superdelegates is not to provide the maximum entertainment. The purpose of the superdelegates is to do what is best for the Democratic party. You may not agree with me, but I think what would be best for the Democratic party would be to win as many races as possible in November by margins as wide as possible.

Clinton has already been making her case that she has more experience than Obama and that she has won more big states. But guess what? Since Obama's February winning streak, he has been gaining superdelegates and Clinton has been LOSING them.

One of the reasons for this shift of superdelegates away from Clinton and towards Obama is his substantial lead of 155 pledged delegates. Clinton would have to win 17% more delegates than Obama in all the remaining races just to catch up. IMO, the key point you have overlooked is that if Clinton can't win at least 50 more delegates than Obama on March 4th then her position gets WORSE.

You present the hypothetical scenario of Obama winning Texas and Clinton eeking out a win in Ohio. Since Obama has a huge lead in Vermont, his delegate lead would increase in your scenario. But even if it Clinton manages to tie Obama in delegates on March 4th she is left in the situation of having to win all the remaining contests by 25% just to catch up. That ain't gonna happen.

Here is the part of your logic I don't understand. Since Clinton is already losing superdelegates partly because she is down by 17% of the remaining pledged delegates, how they heck is she going to start gaining superdelegates when she becomes down by 25%? Is she going to wave a magic wand to make the heavens open up?

[Countess]

I'm glad you find it so enjoyable but for a lot of democrats it has been very depressing watching the Clintons and their disgusting campaign.

[kingfishstew]

I think superdelegates are going to be shelved afer this election, care what.

[AnninCA]

I agree with you. I think she needs one solid win and one close. And then let's move onto Pennsyvania.

He needs to really win this election.

End of story.

He's not going to waltz in as the underdog and strip CA, NY, NJ, MASS, NV, NM, and nearly a host of other close states from their voice.

[57andfemale]

get your facts straight: Hillary won Nevada and New Mexico. And Obama won Missouri (a squeaker), and Wisconsin resoundingly. And Virginia, which could be a swing state, but not with Hillary. And pick up at least one Western state. Obama closed a 25-point gap in California to 9 points. Early voting may have made it closer.

All that being said, I'd be much happier if he out-and-out won this thing. But I deplore the manner in which she has won it, if she does.

The argument that some states "lose their voice" because the other candidate wins, is meaningless and you know it. Should Illinois "lose their voice" if HIllary wins? Ridiculous.